docx-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

add_comments

Add multiple comments to a Word document in one operation, with partial success handling for unfound anchors.

Instructions

Add multiple comments to a document in a single operation. Opens and saves the file only once. Supports partial success: comments with unfound anchors are reported as failures without blocking the rest.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>",
      "comments": "<comments>"
    },
    "name": "add_comments"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file_path`	Yes	Absolute path to the .docx file
`comments`	Yes	Array of comments to add
`default_author`	No	Default author name for comments without an explicit author	Claude

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.1.0May 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description clearly discloses key behaviors: batched operation (open/save once) and partial success handling for unfound anchors. Without annotations, this transparency is essential and well-provided.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three concise, front-loaded sentences with no superfluous words. Every sentence adds value: purpose, optimization, and failure handling.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite no output schema, the description covers the essential return behavior (partial success reporting). It fully explains the tool's operation for a batch comment-adding tool with no missing critical details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no additional semantic meaning to the parameters; it focuses on behavioral aspects. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool adds multiple comments in a single operation, distinguishing it from the sibling 'add_comment' tool that likely adds one comment at a time. The verb 'add' and resource 'comments' are specific.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies this tool is for adding multiple comments efficiently, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus 'add_comment' or other alternatives. It provides context on batch behavior and partial success, which aids decision-making.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.